The High Cost of Higher Education

David:
Bernie Sanders has made free college tuition one of the hallmarks of his campaign. Hillary Clinton agrees with Republicans that idea is not financially feasible. But, the issue is now in the sights of the federal government.

The cost of higher education is an issue for most students, and the costs have reached the point where something needs to change. As a professor, what do you see as the largest drivers of cost, and what can be done about it?

Doug:
Whoa. That is a hard, good question. First, I must say that I'm not going to dismiss Bernie Sanders' plan out of hand. I'd like to know more about what he has in mind. I could imagine that a free college ride is actually an effective use of taxpayers' money. Rather than putting money into a "safety net" (or prison system, or war, etc.) we could put it into the system to prevent most of the needs of that same net.

David:
You are making an assumption, of course, that spending trillions to provide "free" college tuition would somehow prevent the need for the US to protect itself, or that crime is related to the cost of college. Neither of those things would change.

Doug:
Of course people would commit less crimes if they had more education. More education leads to better jobs, which leads to more money. And of course the US needs to protect us, but I think we can do that without the high cost of war.

David:
Primary education leads to less crime. A college education does not. I can't find any data at all to suggest that the reason most criminals commit crimes is that they lack a college degree. Your comment strays far from the question I asked, and has more to do with improving primary education (through efforts like creating more school choice) than it does higher education.

Doug:
Whether or not free college is "feasible" is dependent on one's values. I definitely value an informed electorate.

David:
On that point, we can certainly agree.

Doug:
As to what needs to change, many colleges and universities are asking that very question. Many believed that the idea of a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) was going to save the day. But these experiments have not helped that much. Instead, they may have helped widen the gap.

Colleges and universities serve a unique role in our society. They aren't run like a typical business, and they can't really be because of this unique status. Colleges and universities are designed (through tenure and other means) to allow people to study a topic, and speak out about it without repercussions.

David:
Much like healthcare, the "product" is sometimes hard to define in concrete terms. This makes it difficult to determine if you are getting your money's worth. Of course, that has not kept the federal government from stepping in to control healthcare costs.

Doug:
Professors have many duties, and teaching is just one. They also must help run the college (do advising, serve on committees, etc.), be involved in the service of their profession (conferences, publishing, etc.), and do research (including the pursuit of grants).

David:
That sounds very similar to the life of a hospital-based physician. I currently teach med students, serve on several committees, attend regular conferences, and although I no longer am involved with any, many physicians are involved with research. But I don't see how that has anything to do with costs (or charges). What's your point?

Doug:
When you pay for college, you pay for all of that.

I was initially torn when a tenured faculty member at a Florida school became the spokesperson for a fringe group denying that the Sandy Hook massacre had actually taken place. It is desirable that no one has to step in and fire a tenured faculty member, but he had so severely crossed the line, that I had to reconsider my position. In the end, I believe that his perspective was without any basis, and no one would agree with him. But I am concerned that it sets a precedent regarding firing tenured faculty because they are disagreeable.

I mention that not because it has anything to do with direct costs, but to give an idea of the special role that colleges and universities (and their faculty) play in our society.

David:
Tenure should not be a license to do or say anything. And, as we've seen more recently, for professors that buck the current politically-correct mantra, firing is not the concern. Professors appear to be threatened by the very students they are trying to teach. So much for free speech.

Doug:
Ok, I laughed out loud at that one. You start by stating that tenure should not allow professors to say anything, and end with a lament that free speech has been lost. The whole tenure system is exactly based on freedom of speech. Firing is the concern, even for those that you might not agree with. If you wanted to argue that the Sandy Hook denier should keep his job, then I would understand. But my agreement with his firing doesn't have anything to do with "political correctness", if that is what you are implying. His firing gives me pause. But that faculty member was harassing parents by claiming that their children weren't really dead. That can't be defended by any principle (unless he was correct that it was all staged. If there were any chance that Sandy Hook was a hoax, then he would be a hero for taking the unpopular position and discovering the truth. However, that is far from the truth.)

I have no idea why you are mentioning students and some perceived threat.

David:
It doesn't appear to me that many professors feel the least bit threatened of being fired for saying or doing anything they want. As long as what they say follows liberal group-think. But, if they say something that actually stimulates some thought, like suggesting the college administration shouldn't police Halloween costumes, or that wearing a costume on Halloween that challenges political-correctness is allowable in a free society, the professor felt the need to take a sabbatical to get away from the threatening students.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/

We've discussed this before. But we digress....

Doug:
You are indeed digressing. What happened at Yale doesn't have anything to do with the high cost of education. If anything, it is merely an example of what freedom of speech looks like. You might not agree (or even understand) either side of the argument, but it happens out in the public and no one is harmed.

But deep, thoughtful, criticism of our society can't be made if professors are afraid to speak out. Tenure protects faculty in this role to support the "common good":

http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure

To many, that is the most valuable aspect of our college and university system. I'm not sure if anything can change to make college cheaper. It just may be that this is what it costs to have such a system in our society.

David:
Except for the fact that the government is now in charge of student loans. In much the same way that Medicare provided federal agencies a foothold to control costs in healthcare via price controls, higher education is now in their sights. If you can't think of ways to save money and cut costs, I'm sure some bureaucrats at the Department of Education will. Costs must decline. The question is: how?

Doug:
There are very affordable college options. I don't think Bernie's plan would cost that much more than what we are already spending. It could even save money (e.g., no need for loan collectors). I don't think anything will change.

David:
That comment made me laugh out loud. You use the term "we" pretty loosely. Currently, students pay for the product themselves.

Doug:
No way! A few families are able to pay 100%, but the vast majority of us can't afford it. For the rest of us, we have to get loans and scholarships. The middle class gets lots of loans. I'll have two kids in college next year.

David:
Right. The student gets loans, that they then repay. They pay for the product themselves. Young people who decide to forgo college, or go to community college, make their own decisions as to what they want, and what they are willing to pay for. You, and Bernie, are planning to make everyone pay through much higher taxes, for a new entitlement program.

Doug:
Many of those loans don't get paid back. These are huge amounts of money. And many students go to college on other types of funding that are not required to be paid back.

David:
Come on. Surely you have some ideas to contain costs. If not, then you deserve to have the government step in and start controlling your spending.

Doug:
Sorry, but we don't have a "Pharma Bro" charging $750 per pill that we can ferret out. It costs money to educate students and run a college/university. And, as I said, there are many affordable options. Here is a website put together by a programmer to help match up incomes with appropriate colleges:

http://www.college-costs.com/

Most people don't want "free college"; they just want one that they can afford. Here is a very thorough analysis of the complexity of higher education costs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/magazine/is-college-tuition-too-high.html?_r=0

One quote from the article: "In other words, our system gives three times as much aid to the least needy as it gives to the most." I can think of many things I'd like to fix, but none of them will make college any cheaper.

David:
Well, I might say that it costs money to take care of people and run a hospital, too. Apparently, you don't feel that a company should be able to recover the millions of dollars it costs to bring a successful drug to market, or perhaps you just don't understand what goes on behind the scenes. But that doesn't stop you from saying healthcare costs too much, but education deserves all of the money that it charges. The high costs of higher education are hurting all students, and the poorest students the most. Something has to give.

Doug:
It definitely costs money to take care of people. And when one's business model is to make money off of taking care of people, then you have some serious conflict of interests. But your analogy breaks down when you compare state-run colleges to private-run colleges. State-run colleges are generally very affordable. People aren't making the kinds of money that they make off the healthcare industry. But at what cost? Many state schools don't even have tenure. That is a price too high.

David:
Let me make some suggestions. Perhaps we can provide "free" tuition to students, but just tell all universities and colleges they now have to provide the same educational opportunities they did before, and to the same number of students (or more), but they will only get paid 60% of what they charged before. That's pretty much how Medicare works. Let's see how that works for the education system.

Doug:
This is very similar to how the system currently works now.

David:
A better idea might be to have centers of higher education focus on individual degree programs. So, you might have a group of schools that provide only biology degrees, or business, or chemistry. By providing only one or two specialized programs, we could likely decrease costs of duplication of all degrees at all schools. What say you?

Doug:
That is how state schools often divide up the areas of study. It isn't a coincidence that the Engineering programs in the state of Indiana are at Purdue University, and the rest is at Indiana University. This was a conscious decision by the state to not duplicate services. That generally works fine, but the costs are what they are.

Gravitational Waves and Shrimp

Doug:
A major scientific breakthrough was announced this week: for the first time, gravitational waves have been detected. Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago, and these experiments show that he was correct.

This was a risky project that could have been beyond the reach of what we could detect. But, decades of work (and funding from the US) made this possible.

I suspect that there are some people that don't see the value of our government funding such large "moon shot" type projects. And probably many that don't believe that the government should be providing any money to science, or to the arts.

David:
The answer is yes......and no.

The question is whether or not the "science" benefits Americans, and whether or not the studies and research would be done without government assistance. (Aye, but thars the rub, said the pirate. How do ye know fer sure what is good or what is bad?) Right now, the government is borrowing money at roughly 1 million dollars every minute of every day. It becomes very important to make sure we aren't spending money where we don't need to. Here's a balanced article from NPR that discusses research waste. Note that at no time do researchers defend the studies themselves, or argue the money wasn't wasted, just that they don't like the government criticizing them. Even the last study listed (Why do bowlers smile?), should have been funded privately.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies

"Shrimp on a treadmill" has become synonymous with government wasting money.

Doug:
Funny that you should mention the "shrimp on a treadmill" research, because I was involved in a project also mentioned in that same critique, so I know something about this in detail. First, this critique came from, as noted in the above NPR report, Tom Coburn's annual report "Under the Microscope":

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/gdc/coburn/2014500020.pdf

In addition to criticising the shrimp study, the report also said:

"There is little, if any, obvious scientific benefit to some NSF projects, such as a YouTube rap video, a review of event ticket prices on stubhub.com, a “robot hoedown and rodeo,” or a virtual recreation of the 1964/65 New York World’s Fair." ---Under the Microscope, page 4.

There is no mention of exactly what the "robot hoedown and rodeo" cost, but I can tell you. It was $6,283. What was it for? It was designed to introduce Computer Science educators to low-cost robotics to use in their classrooms to teach computing. This is one area of research that I work in. There were about 5,000 people at the conference hosting the robot rodeo. Although the US government only put in $6k, about 15 PhD's volunteered their time and energy for 4 days to demonstrate these robots.

The end result is that many colleagues I know don't want to volunteer any more to an event ridiculed by our own government. You can check out the summary of the whole event here (and you may even spot me in some of the pictures and videos):

http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kay/sigcse/rodeo.html

Of course the irony is the that more fun and interesting you try to make your project sound (e.g., "robot rodeo") the more likely it can be taken out of context by the Know Nothings that look over NSF funded research looking for reports that sound fishy. Or shrimpy.

David:
Of course, sometimes a shrimp is, in fact, just a shrimp. Not all research needs government funding. Surely, you aren't going to defend the rap video or the review of stubhub ticket prices.

Doug:
Yes, I will defend all of the funded research because I know how the process works. All of the funding goes to the most viable research submitted, and determined by a jury of peers. If you have a problem with a funded project, then you have a problem with the democratic process.

David:
Not so fast. The reason that corporation CEO's get such enormous salaries and benefits, is that a "jury of their peers", the members of the board of directors (many of whom are also CEO's of other corporations) vote on what those salaries should be. That, too, is a democratic process. If the money  for scientists is distributed by other scientists who also want to get government money, then the entire process may be tainted.

Doug:
I've been on NSF review panels, and the entire process can't be tainted.

David:
That is very likely true, but are you saying that you could not possibly have obtained any funding for your conference without the taxpayers footing the bill?

Doug:
We did get additional funding from corporations. But it still was not enough.

David:
If the research is important, then scientist should make a pitch to the private sector for funding, just like everyone else. I just went to an emergency medicine conference and paid for it myself. Why? Because the information is useful to me. But, I agree that some beneficial research does need the government to step in. But there needs to be limits.

Doug:
There are already limits. There is very little money for doing science in the US. I bet Coburn's office spent more taxpayer money on this silly report than the scientists did on the "shrimp on a treadmill" experiments (which cost less than $1,000). They had to pay the staffers to produce the report. I believe Coburn even had thousands of these reports printed and mailed out. This report was not peer-reviewed, but every dollar given out in US funding is.

But the robot rodeo was not a typical funded project like the "shrimp on a treadmill." The big funded projects are those selected via peer review, and these awards are very competitive. I trust that the peers are doing their best to be effective stewards of this money. By the way, no one is getting rich off of these grants. These grants just allow researchers to do the science that they are interested in. These scientists are very hard working, and, in all cases I know, we taxpayers get a very good deal for the money that we put into this research.

David:
Thousands of $1000 projects can add up pretty quickly. Just because someone isn't getting rich does not mean they aren't wasting money.

Doug:
My point was about the motivation for these grants. Scientists don't submit proposals to get rich; they do it because the award motivates them to do the science. Perhaps some of this research will lead to something that a corporation will sell and make money. But that is not why we do science. We do science because we want to understand the world around us. I understand that some people don't value that. But I vote for people who do.

David:
I vote for people who are responsible with taxpayer dollars.

The NPR article above also notes that sometimes funding was granted for one study, and later that money was parceled out to others. The original study may have been peer-reviewed, or not, but the money doesn't appear to have gone were it was originally intended.

Doug:
That is not true. If any money goes to anything outside of the bounds of the proposal, then an audit kicks in. All money must go to what was proposed, or the college or university would have to reimburse it, and someone would get fired.

David:
Unless the audit approves the expenditures.

Doug:
The auditors only decide if a charge was under the original proposal. They do not have the authority to approve charges that are outside those bounds.

David:
And I still have not found a good defense of the "shrimp on a treadmill" study as a good use of government cash.

Doug:
Then you didn't look very hard. There are lots of additional articles on the science behind the treadmill experiments. But the idea that someone not in that field would understand the value of any particular study in the context of that science is hubris. You (and I) are not qualified to judge.

David:
They don't want me to judge them, but they do want my money.

You are right in that I didn't look very hard. I'm still chuckling watching that poor little shrimp running on his custom treadmill.  It never gets old.

Doug:
There's your argument in a nutshell. I should say that I also support the government funding of the arts. A society that doesn't value the arts is a society that is in decline.

David:
Government funding of the arts is not the same as society valuing the arts. Society should fund it through private donations, not with taxpayer dollars. If particular art does not spark interest in society, then it will fail. In the past, kings and queens would commission certain pieces of art, but they didn't fund "The Arts". And we still have plenty of art that represents what was popular during certain times. Perhaps we should return to that model.

Doug:
Some of the most interesting art through history has come exactly from such sources. Of course, I am concerned about having to borrow money for our government to function. It is obvious that we want to keep on doing cutting-edge science. So we must raise more money. It also seems obvious that the super-rich need to pay their share.

David:
Right. Oh, wait a minute, the "super-rich" are already going to pay for "free" healthcare for all, and for "free" college tuition, and to pay down Obama's debt, and  every other "freebie" that Democrats can think of. Unfortunately, if you taxed the top 1% at a 100% tax rate, there isn't enough money to cover even one of those projects, let alone all of them!

Doug:
So, your solution is to give them a tax break? That is definitely heading in the wrong direction by your own admission. How about we raise the taxes somewhat, and we fix some of the problems?

David:
I said nothing of tax breaks. I'm simply talking about math. None of what the Democratic candidates is pushing adds up. It doesn't even come close. How about we cut spending, and solve a lot of the problem. But, to paraphrase all of the Democrats running for office right now, the way to eliminate income inequality is to take all of the money from those who have it. Then, everyone will be happy at the bottom.

Doug:
Your misunderstanding of the progressive movement is impressive. To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is a project that highlights those people who don't understand science, nor how science works. It is a bullying tactic. Find something that sounds funny, don't look at the details, and make fun of the people behind it. There is a lot of interesting science going on in the NSF, even in the "Under the Microscope" report. To denigrate it because it sounds funny, or that it doesn't match expectation is anti-science.

David:
Making sure taxpayer dollars are wisely spent is not anti-science. If you can't take the heat of scrutiny, then don't take the money.

Doug:
It is very hard to get funded. You act like they give out cash, and then later ask: "so, what'd you do with it?" In reality, you have to specify in fairly precise detail what you will spend the money on.

David:
To me, "shrimp on a treadmill" is rightfully a transparent view of government spending. Right now, we should cut the funding of the NSF by 10%. They would still be functioning as they are, but they might be 10% better at watching where the funds are going.  That's what I expect from all of government: Using taxpayer money wisely, and getting the best bang for the buck, not just a reasonable deal. I expect my tax dollars to be used only for the most important studies that absolutely cannot be done any other way.

Doug:
Where did you get 10%? Why not 100%? In any event, I am very proud of the scientists and the US government for the gravitational wave experiments and results. This is very exciting, and it is fascinating to wonder where these experiments might lead.

David:
We should cut 10% across the board. All government agencies get equal treatment. This is just a starting point. We'll never get a handle on the debt unless we start spending less.

Now, turning to  another related issue: NASA.

Remember when we were kids? I wanted to be an astronaut (or an Indy 500 racer driver). We watched the race to the moon, and played with our astronaut GI Joes. We pretended we were on our way to the moon, and beyond. With the federal government behind the program, America was able to get men to the moon, and safely back again in 9 years....from scratch. It was a remarkable program, full of remarkable people.

I say "was"for a reason. Now, just to repeat the same mission of placing men on the surface of the moon, is estimated to take 30 years, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We already have the blueprints, and we have more computing power in the computer I'm using right now than we had in all of NASA during the 1960's. So what's different now? NASA has become a classic bureaucracy. Instead of keeping a focus, and maintaining a force of engineers, NASA now has a mountain of bureaucrats at all levels, and a plethora of various big-government, non-science duties to perform. Like Muslim "out-reach".

http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html

The way to inspire a new generation of American kids to get involved in science is to do great things, remarkable things, SPACE things. Black holes? That gets kid's imaginations working. NASA could have a base on Mars right now, if the government bureaucrats would just leave them be. And they could do it with much less cost, if they weren't micro-managed, and had a specific focus. Heck, right now we're dependent on the Russian's just to launch supplies to the space station.

Doug:
We're dependant on the Russians because we cut the Space Shuttle program. I don't understand your point. On the one hand you say "leave the scientists alone" and on the other hand you salute the politicians that make fun of the science funding by politicizing it. Which is it? Let them do the science, or let Know Nothings decide which science is worthwhile?

Imagine if Obama had said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." He would have been ridiculed.

David:
Instead, he said the space agency should focus on making Muslim countries feel like they're included in our space efforts, rather than actually going to space.

Doug:
Really? That was his focus? He didn't do a very good job, because Obama never mentioned it. Everyone connected to NASA has denied that claim:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/did-obama-speci.html

David:
The NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, said it, until it was criticized. Then President Obama denied it ever happened. How easily you believe a Democratic administration.

Doug:
How easily you believe that there is a conspiracy involving our top-most elected officials to turn the whole space agency into a Muslim propaganda machine. Or you could believe that one fellow was misquoted, misspoke, or is a tad wacky. Which is more likely?

David:
A top governmental official being wacky? Perish the thought!

If we eliminated the bureaucratic waste in NASA, we'd be able to do much, much more with the funding we have.

Doug:
There is no evidence for the claim that we can do more.

David:
Freeing up money that is tied up in the inefficiencies of bureaucracy allows that money to be used for something else, something productive.

The point is NASA has become a classic government agency, full of bloated bureaucracy that now prevents it from accomplishing the very mission it was created to perform.

Doug:
We should let the scientists figure out what work needs to be done, and let them do it. If that requires shrimp on a treadmill, then so be it. And keep the politicians out of the way.

David:
Well, we both actually agree in principle. However, as long as government is responsible for funding, the politicians, bureaucrats, and ultimately taxpayers, are always going to want a say.  This is just one important area that will need to be cut, unless we address and reform entitlement spending.  The longer we wait, the bigger the cuts will ultimately be. That will have broad effects for all of us.

Doug:
If we agree in principle, then let's stick to our principles. Either the politicians and taxpayers know enough to be able to weigh in on the science, or they don't. If they think that "shrimp on a treadmill" is a different kind of science than that needed to put people on Mars, then they get what they deserve: a sterile science devoid of curiosity.

David:
Okay then, we don't agree. Scientists, farmers, educators, doctors, or anyone else who take government funding are responsible to the taxpayers for their work and results. No one should get a blank check. To do otherwise leads to corruption and out-of-control spending. Transparency should be the hallmark of science. We should have more, not less transparency in all aspects of government. And that includes the NSF.

Doug:
You make a false dichotomy. As I already have pointed out, there is a rigorous process in place. There is no "blank check." Transparency is the hallmark of science! Reproducibility, double-checking, peer-review... all parts of science. All that is left for you to do is say: "those shrimp look funny on that treadmill." I have a feeling that the next big breakthroughs won't be coming from the US with thinking like that.

David:
Hmmm. All of this talk about shrimp is making me hungry. Now, if I could just catch some of those speedy little fellows.....

Income Inequality

David:
The path to the White House this year will undoubtedly pass through a discussion of income inequality. Let's break this into a discussion of what it is, why it is, and what to do about it.

Doug:
That sounds like a good idea. Let's get this party started.

David:
During the Obama years, the income and buying power of working-class Americans has stagnated, largely because of the actions of the Obama administration. Money flowing to the wealthy has increased substantially, for the same reasons. That's why I find it puzzling that the president and Democrats are making this an issue during this election cycle. It's like the old saying, give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself.

Doug:
It is true that during the last few years the income differences between the top wage earners and the rest of us has continued to grow wider. But this has been a trend that has been going on for many decades. What actions of the administration do you think have contributed to the inequality? In your analogy, what is the rope, and who is the man?

David:

Democrats are the man, and the economy and plight of the middle-class is the rope. It's actually interesting to watch Sanders on the stump. President Obama says the unemployment rate is less than 5%, and Bernie says no, it's actually 10%. It refreshing to see honesty in politics.

Doug:

I think you (and Bernie) have a point. But, you have to compare apples to apples. What the government tracks hasn't changed over the years. Sander's point is that there are many people not being counted as "unemployed", because they gave up. But there are always people in the camp that just can't find a job. That was true 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 50 years ago. So, to be fair, you'd need to compare Bernie's measurement over time. If you did track that, I think you'd be seeing that number go down too. If it is 10% now, it was probably 25% when Obama took office. 

David:

Well, at least you and me, along with Bernie and the Republicans, agree that the government numbers are not accurate, and are misleading.

Doug:

Any manner of boiling a real situation down to a single number is going to be an approximation and leave out some important aspects. But it is even more misleading to compare apples to chickens.

David:

Ah. So you're saying Bernie Sanders is comparing apples to chickens in his speeches. Perhaps Hillary isn't the only one with trust and honesty issues?

The Fed has kept rates at near 0% for 7 years now. For the little guy, who tries to save money by putting it in the bank, his rate of return has been zero. If you have enough money to put into the stock market, you've done well in the past few years. The stimulus money and bailouts were supposed to allow banks to loan more money to the middle-class, but because the money had no strings attached, the big banks and corporations used the money to buy all of their smaller competitors. Things are now worse than they were before in regards to Wall Street firms that are too big to fail.  They are bigger, and there are now fewer of them.

Doug:

You sound like you are stumping for Bernie. I think you have some latent Progressive tendencies.

David:

If Bernie is campaigning on the ideas that big-government fixes completely miss the mark, and make things worse, then yes, we're on the same team. Unfortunately, his message is that big-government is still too small, and their foibles need to be enlarged. Go figure.

Obamacare, and all of the new taxes, regulations, and penalties that go with it, have caused most of the new jobs that have come about during the "Obama recovery" to be part-time, or entry-level jobs. 

Doug:

Oops, that doesn't sound Progressive. That sounds crazy. There is no evidence to support that. In fact, just the opposite. Obamacare has helped keep healthcare costs in check.

David:

Obamacare actually did nothing for healthcare costs. It was a bill that addressed insurance availability and coverage. The two are not exclusive, but they are not necessarily related. And, since the passage of the ACA, insurance costs are up. Deductibles are up. Networks are narrower, and Americans did not get to keep their plans or their family doctors. None of it was true.

Companies will save money where they can, and if it's cheaper to hire part-time employees rather than full-time, they'll do it. If the government punishes a company for hiring full-time employees, they won't.  Smaller companies are also now drawing the line at employing 50 employees. To cross that line means they must provide insurance that costs much more than it did before Obamacare. And insurance premiums and deductibles are eating away at the money that the middle-class does have.

Doug:

I think that was "Papa John's" talking point last election. But he seems richer and happier than ever.

David:

But his pizza delivery costs may get more expensive: Obama has gone to great lengths to raise the cost of gasoline. Remember his first Energy Secretary claiming that the goal was to get gas prices above $4.00 per gallon, to cut fuel use? Despite his efforts, gas prices have come down, providing much needed relief for the middle-class. But what's he proposing now? A $10 per gallon tax to push prices back up again. This action also hurts the middle-class more than the wealthy.

Doug:

I think you get mixed up when we are talking about reality, not some fictional world. The reality is that gas prices are low. If I can quote Rubio, "Obama knows what he is doing."

David:

Gas prices are low, despite the president's efforts. Remember, he stopped oil drilling on federal land. If not for fracking and new ways to get oil on private land, we wouldn't be where we are right now. I find it amusing that he now tries to take credit for low prices ( and the benefits for the middle-class) , but immediately turns around to propose his new tax, with the explanation that he intends to raise prices to discourage gasoline use. Personally, I prefer to have money in my pocket instead of putting it in my gas tank.

Doug:

Yes, yes, yes. The economy is great, despite the president's efforts. The stock market is great, despite the president's efforts. Gas prices are low, despite the president's efforts. Healthcare is saving costs, despite the president's efforts. Oil production in the US is at an all time high, despite the president's efforts. Perhaps income inequality, too, is the largest it has ever been, despite the president's efforts.

David:

Almost. The stock market has seen great jumps because of low interest rates, which the president supported, but that hasn't helped the little guy at all. Income inequality is expanding because of the president's policies.

Now, what to do about income inequality? A good start would be to put a moratorium on new business regulations. Right now, there are more small businesses failing than there are new ones starting up. As the largest driver of new jobs, small businesses need relief.

Doug:

I don't think that is going to help the majority of middle class US citizens. We need to seriously alter that way that money flows in this country. We need to pay people enough to live on, and we need to stop giving bailouts and welfare to huge businesses. 

David:

I agree on your last point, in that we need to cut out tax breaks and government money for huge corporations. You might want to mention that to Hillary. But, regulatory burdens on small business, and the uncertainty of the regulatory environment moving forward is a drain on new start-ups. Small businesses still account for 64% of all new jobs, according to government statistics.

Doug:

Despite the president's efforts!

David:

Absolutely! See, I knew you'd start to catch on sooner or later.

Obamacare needs a major overhaul. I mean, a complete and utter revision. In other words, it's a failure, and needs to be repealed and replaced with something that works. Allowing insurance to be bought and sold across state lines using the internet would allow more companies to compete for buyers, and decrease costs. Freeing up insurers to offer tailor-made packages would also decrease costs for most buyers. Some of the rules set up by Obamacare may be retained, but overall, government involvement has made things more complicated and more expensive. 

Doug:

You keep talking like that, and we'll have another Democrat in the White House for 8 years.

David:

More likely, a federal courthouse. But you can always dream...

Doug:

You always are :)

Can Bernie Get Elected?

David:
Can Bernie Sanders get elected?

Doug:
Yes, if it he makes it out of the primaries and enough people vote for him.

David:
Iowa is done, and Sanders finished second in a surprisingly close race (because Hillary won 6 coin tosses in a row. Inconceivable!).  He's been steadily gaining steam in the early voting states, but can that provide enough momentum to carry him further? If he wins the primaries, can he win in a general election?

Doug:
I think his messages are the right messages for today. They are not just progressive arguments, but are on point with what is wrong. For example, I would think it is hard for anyone to justify the following questions Sanders asks Walmart:

https://www.good.is/articles/bernie-v-walmart

Sanders asks: "The Walton family is the wealthiest family in America, does anyone on the panel think that they need significant welfare help? Yet, it turns out that they are the largest recipient of welfare in America. Because when you pay workers starvation wages, which is what Walmart does, how do the workers at Walmart or McDonald's or Burger King survive? Well, they get Medicaid for their kids and for themselves, they get food stamps, and they live in government sponsored affordable housing."

David:
That's a pretty convoluted thought process going on. And it really isn't based in reality, but in class warfare. Maybe the solution is for the government to stop providing all of those things, so the people will rise up and demand more from their employers. If that is his message, I could jump on the Bernie train...

Doug:
It isn't "class warfare" because I don't blame the Waltons---I blame the government for letting them get away with this scam. I don't think that we need to blame the Waltons for not having basic morals. But there needs to be some principles in place that prevent any corporation from making us taxpayers pay for the things that their employees cannot afford.

David:
Whoa. Walmart has people lining up to work for them. Unions can't get a foothold in Walmart because the employees are happy with their jobs and wages. And yet, you and Bernie say that because some of their workers might get subsides (which have become much easier to get under the Obama administration, even for folks who are well above the poverty line), that somehow that equates to Walmart getting subsidized from the government? Employing people across the country, and providing inexpensive goods to purchase, and at the same time creating a workforce that loves their company is a feat that should be praised, not demonized.  They've certainly created more jobs than President Obama, or Bernie Sanders. So who's morals should we besmirch? The ones who spend other people's money, and have put us all in incredible debt, or the one's who put their own money on the line and have helped thousands in the process?

Doug:
It is not that complicated: Walmart pays very low wages, and the US tax payers end up giving Walmart employees food stamps and other support just to survive. Pay the employees more, and we don't have to subsidize them. Can the Waltons afford to pay their employees more? Judging from their profits, yes.

David:
Walmart employs more folks than any other company in America. Walmart pays an average  of $13 per hour. That's more than many other jobs. For an entry level, unskilled worker without an education, their $10 per hour minimum is better than just about anywhere else.

Doug:
That is patently not true because there are many places that have a higher minimum wage in the US. And there are many other corporations that pay all of their workers a living wage.

David:
You're dreaming. You need to remember that the cost of living is tremendously variable across the country. Walmart serves many small communities where their wages provide what people need in a job. It seems that you and Bernie, along with union bosses,  are the only ones complaining about Walmart. Their employees certainly aren't.

Doug:
It isn't that hard to show that there are many minimum wages higher than $10 an hour:

http://time.com/3890984/cities-highest-minimum-wage-map/

And there are many companies that pay all of their employees a living wage, like Costco paying $21 an hour:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/3p-weekend-10-companies-pay-living-wage/

David:
It's true some cities and towns have been setting wages, and some states, too.  This allows companies to decide where to open up their shops. If a town has too many regulations, a company may decide to locate elsewhere.  Companies should be able to decide what they pay their workers. That's called competition. Good workers will then all work for companies that pay more. Bad companies that pay less go out of business, and cities that over-regulate will loose companies to other cities.  So, if what you say is true,  how is it that people are clamoring to work for such a terrible company? Because you and Bernie are wrong, about a lot of things.

Walmart is the place for many Americans to get real job experience. If they stay with the company, stats show they get promoted quickly, and if they leave the company, they have valuable experience that can provide for a better paying job.

Doug:
There are many people that work there as their career.

David:
Exactly. Because they are happy working there. And, as you just said so well, they are living their entire careers on the wages provided. This isn't a Communist country where they are forced to work where the government demands (for the greater good, of course).

Doug:
No, our government allows companies to pay too little for people that have few choices.

David:
The fed's intrusion into the business marketplace is what is dragging down the economy. If they made it easier for small businesses to get started and operate, workers would have a lot more choices. President Obama has made things worse with a continuous flurry of new regulations. Bernie is Obama on steroids. (Wait. Does that mean their presidencies would have to be marked with an asterix?)

The flip side of all of this is when Walmart increased (voluntarily) it's minimum wage, it had to close 269 stores, 154 in the US. So, if you pay some workers more, other workers are out of work completely. Old Bernie doesn't mention the much higher government cost of unemployed Americans. Once again, the Democratic Party believes it's better to have no job, than to have an entry-level job that doesn't provide as much as a high-skilled job.

Doug:
Walmart has been doing this scam for a long time. They will move into a community, provide lower costs on everything from haircuts to tires, suck all of the money out of the community, close their doors, and move on to the next community. We should not support this operation with tax dollars.

David:
That's complete fiction.

Doug:
"Wal-Mart isn’t just the world’s biggest company, it is probably the world’s most written-about." You'll find many entire books written about Walmart's methods, but they are not in the "fiction" section. There isn't a debate about how they operate, but whether they should be able to do it.

David:
They operate just like every other large, big-box store. You're right, there shouldn't be a debate about how they operate, which is why you have to make things up to have this debate.

The complaint I have with Walmart, and with other large retailers, is they put mom-and-pop stores out of business.

Doug:
But ask yourself: how do they do that? It is because they don't pay their employees as well as Mom and Pop do. And the US taxpayers have to step in.

David:
There is a word I'll introduce you to: economics. Large companies can offer goods at lower prices than smaller companies (mom-and-pops) because they can buy products at bulk prices. They pass those lower prices on to customers. People buy goods that cost less. Stores that cannot compete go out of business.  Nothing sinister at work here. It's simple supply and demand. That was going on long before Walmart was ever even conceived. (And before most of the afore mentioned Waltons were conceived either...)

But they don't bleed a town dry and then "move on to the next community".  No one would allow them into their town or city if that were true. Every jurisdiction has zoning laws and ordinances that require a new store to get approval before they move in. Instead, town leaders lobby Walmart to come to their communities.

Doug:
It happens. Probably the same way that cities get professional sports teams and stadiums: the allure of jobs and better economy. But often, it doesn't work. Mom and Pop are still there, but where did Walmart go?

David:
I also note that Bernie did not say that if we raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour nationally, that we can get rid of welfare. Using his argument, we should be able to do away with (or seriously cut ) Medicaid,  government housing, and food stamps, if only big, evil companies are forced to pay a better wage.

Doug:
There is still a need for welfare, even if everyone makes enough to survive. For example, what happens if you get hurt, or need to take care of a loved one, or get fired. A living wage is just part of the solution.

David:
Ah. Now I see. Even if everyone has enough, Big Government must still be there, to provide even more. Insurance covers health and illness, and if you lose your job, you need to get another one.  See, only limited  government is needed in the real world, unless you eliminate insurance and jobs.

Now, if Hillary Clinton gets indicted, or if the FBI recommends indictment, will Joe Biden jump back in to "save the day"? Is he a better choice for the general election than a Socialist?

Doug:
Besides the fact that your premise is completely delusional, and that Joe was never "in", the fact is that the people get to pick our President. You say "Socialist" like that is a bad thing. Perhaps you don't understand the basic idea of what Socialism is in the United States?

David:
Delusional is exactly the word I would use to describe someone who won't admit the possibility there is enough evidence to indict her for the same crimes that got General Petraeus indicted and convicted. Do you not watch any news? I know the White House prefers to say there is no substance to the rumors, but they also said we'd all get to keep our doctors and health insurance after Obamacare was passed.

And your question about Socialism is just the question I'm asking: Do you think a majority of Americans would elect an admitted Socialist? I do think it is a very bad thing.

Doug:
A lot of people use those evil Socialist services: unemployment services, social security, healthcare when you are broke, services for the elderly, education, transit infrastructure, etc. Those are not bad, and could very well help win Sanders some votes. Could Sanders get elected? You betcha!

David:
Not this time around.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

This poll was from June, and more recent polling shows that Democrats are now more in favor of a Socialist than at that time. But, that may be because they don't like Hillary that much, are afraid she may become ineligible to run, and the Socialist, Bernie Sanders, may be their only hope this year. Or maybe, it's because they have no idea what they're talking about, as seen in this CNN clip:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-baldwin-asks-sanders-supporters-to-define-the-word-socialist/

Regardless, the Iowa caucuses did show us some things. The preliminary front-runners didn't fulfill expectations, a millionaire and billionaire can't buy the presidency, and the race for the presidency is likely to provide us with more blog material. A lot more.....

Doug:
We can certainly agree on that!